This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 31-1-2008, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, dismissing the application in I.A.No.525 of 2007 in O.S.No.9 of 1999, filed by the petitioners, and refusing to permit the 2nd petitioner to give evidence on behalf of the 151 petitioner.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the 2nd petitioner is conversant with the facts of the case, the Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioners and permitted the 2nd petitioner to give evidence on behalf of the 151 petitioner, and therefore, the order passed by the Court below, refusing to permit the 2nd petitioner to give evidence on behalf of the 151 petitioner, has to be set aside. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jaldu Visveswara Rao and others v. Mandala Dhana Lakshmi 2007 (1) ALD 80 = 2007 (4) ALT 703.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order under revision, the only question that arises for consideration in this C.R.P is whether the 151 petitioner, who is the plaintiff, can be permitted to examine on her behalf, her husband,